PrepTest 156

[lcid:3721] Prep Test 156 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S2 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Editorialist: Evidence shows that Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Strategy Overview

Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument Anticipate why the premises are not enough to prove that the conclusion is true.
Checking to see if a common logical fallacy is committed is very helpful.

Answer Anticipation

On an Errors in Reasoning question, we should take the time to articulate why the premise or premises aren't enough to prove that the conclusion is true. To that end, we can examine whether the conclusion makes any bold claims or whether the argument relies on any reasoning techniques associated with common flaws. This question uses a correlation-to-causation argument structure. The conclusion is expressed in causal terms: restricting tobacco ads has "a significant impact on smoking among adults." If the restrictions impacted it, they caused the change. But, the premises only rely on a correlation. A survey shows that fewer adults smoke now than at any other time in the last 20 years, with the last 10 years showing the biggest reduction. Also, "the most important" restrictions on tobacco advertising appeared 10 years ago. Even if these similar dates point to a strong association, we can't say that the restrictions caused the reduction in smoking among adults. We can't say that because, among other reasons, many other things could have changed in the last 10 or 20 years. More health evidence on smoking's harmful effects, smoking becoming more expensive, restrictions on where you can smoke, etc., etc. The correct answer will likely point out that the argument confuses correlation for causation or that the argument overlooks other possible causes of a reduction in smoking among adults.

Answer choices

  1. A
    fails to consider whether Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    This is totally irrelevant. The conclusion only asserts that restrictions on tobacco ads have impacted "smoking among adults." Even if the number of teen smokers impacts the number of adult smokers, the editorialist cites premises about adults who smoke. We know about that number. So, we can cross off (A).

  2. B
    uses evidence that describes Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    The editorialist relies on a "survey," but there isn't a clear sampling flaw here. Plus, the phrasing of this answer choice doesn't describe a sampling flaw. A description of a sampling flaw would say the survey may use an "unrepresentative" sample of the population to draw a conclusion about the population. It's OK to use evidence about the "percentage of the adult population" to reach conclusions about the entire adult population, provided that the samples you use are representative of the adult population.

  3. C
    reaches a conclusion about Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    This doesn't describe a flaw. The editorialist uses evidence from 10 and 20 years ago, but they also use evidence about "now." To draw a conclusion about recent changes in adult smoking, evidence of those changes over the last 20 years is relevant.

  4. D
    neglects to take into Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    This is irrelevant. The conclusion only concerns the reductions in adult smoking tobacco ad restrictions supposedly caused. Restrictions on other products wouldn't feasibly impact reductions in adult smoking.

  5. E
    fails to consider the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    Finally, this answer choice describes the causation flaw we spotted. This brings up the other plausible causes of the reduction in adults who smoke. So tunnel-brained to link ad restrictions and smoking among adults, the editorialist overlooks "factors other than restrictions on advertising" that could have contributed to that reduction. We can confidently select this and move on.

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion